Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY,THE4H DAYOF DECEMBER201313TH AGRAHAYANA,1935 WP(C).No. 36813 of 2007 (G) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------------- D.JOHNY,S/O.DASAN NADAR, PWD CONTRACTOR, KAITHARA, VELLAPPALLY NARUVAMOODU P.O., NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV.SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENTS : ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ROADS & BRIDGES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD, ROAD & BRIDGES, SOUTH CIRCLE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.K.SAIDALAVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0412-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 36813 of 2007 (G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CE/R&B/TVM/51617/93 DATED6.6.2006 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
G.O.(RT.)NO.246/2002/PWD. DATED3003.2002 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
G.O.(MS)NO.19/2007/PWD. DATED163.2007 EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
G.O,(RT.)NO.416/2000/PWD. DATED224.2000 EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY FO THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARYTO GOVT. DATED215.2007 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : EXT.R4(a) : COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER
DATED11.1.2007 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT /TRUE COPY/ P.ATO JUDGE AV BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, J.
------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.36813 of 2007 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2013
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner before the Government in the light of Exts.P1 to P4.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had completed the reconstruction of Vizhinjam Bridge on the basis of the agreement executed on 13.10.1999. But, he could not complete the execution of the work in time due to non handing over of the required lands in time and for other reasons. There was no default on the part of the petitioner in the execution of the work and the Government had extended the time for completing the work. In such a circumstance, the petitioner had to sustain heavy loss due to various reasons. Therefore, he W.P.(C)No.36813 of 2007 2 had claimed enhanced rate of payment for the work executed by him. But such a claim had not been allowed by the authorities so far. The petitioner is entitled to enhanced rate in the light of Ext.P1 recommendation made by the second respondent Chief Engineer. Enhanced rates had been allowed by the Government in similar situations in respect of three other contracts as evident from Exts.P2, P3 and P4. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to similar treatment at the hands of the respondents in the matter of enhanced rate of payment, he further submits.
4. Learned Senior Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that such enhanced rate as claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted and the Government had turned down such a proposal by issuing Ext.R4(a) communication to the second respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that Ext.R4(a) has not been communicated to the petitioner so far. Moreover, the recommendations made by the second respondent or the contentions raised by the petitioner in his Ext.P5 representation had not been considered while issuing W.P.(C)No.36813 of 2007 3 Ext.R4(a).
5. Having heard both the sides, this Court is of the considered view that a direction has to be issued to the first respondent for considering Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of being heard to him. The petitioner can also produce documents or other evidence including Exts.P1 to P4 before the first respondent.
6. In the result, the first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will be free to produce documents or other evidence including Exts.P1 to P4 before the first respondent for consideration. The first respondent shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before disposing of Ext.P5. This writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. AV